STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

EXHIBIT E 

HEARING REPORT 

Prepared Pursuant to Section 4-168(d) of the 

Connecticut General Statutes and 

Section 22a-3a-3(d)(5) of the Department of Environmental Protection Rules of Practice 

Regarding the 

Amendment of Sections 22a-174-20,22a-174-32(b)(3) and 22a-174-33(f)(6) of the 

Regulations of Connecticut *State Agencies 

Merrily A. Gere 

Hearing Officer 

Date of Hearing: May 28, 2009 

On March 27, 2009, the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) 

signed a notice of intent to amend sections 22a-174-20, 22a-174-32(b)(3) and 22a-174-33(f) of 

the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA). Pursuant to such notice, a public 

hearing was held on May 28, 2009, and the public comment period closed June 1, 2009. The 

amended regulations will be submitted to the U. S . Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for 

review and approval as a revision to the State Implementation Plan. 

I. Hearing Report Content 

As required by section 4-168(d) of the Connecticut General Statutes (CGS), this report describes 

the proposal; the principal reasons in support of and in opposition to the proposal; and 

summarizes and responds to all comments on the proposal . A final recommended version of the 

amended regulations, inclusive of changes recommended in response to comment, is also 

provided. 

A statement in satisfaction of CGS section 22a-6(h) is located in Attachment 1 to this report . 

Il. Purpose and Summary of the Proposal 

The proposal serves three purposes: (1) adopt requirements consistent with the reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) level of control established in EPA's control techniques 

guidelines (CTGs) promulgated in 2006 and 2007; (2) on DEP's initiative, improve DEP's 

ability to regulate certain activities; and (3) eliminate redundant or conflicting requirements. 

EPA issued CTGs in 2006 for offset lithographic and letterpress printing, industrial cleaning 

solvents and flexible package printing [71 FR 58745] and in 2007 for metal fiuniture coating, 

large appliance coating and paper, film and foil coating [72 FR 57215] . As Connecticut 

- currently has requirements controlling volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from metal 

furniture coating and paper coating, which are based on earlier CTGs and are included in 

(Printed on Recycled Paper) 

79 Elm Street " Hartford, CT 06106-5127 

www.ct .gov/dep 

An Equal Opportunity Employer 
RCSA section 22a-174-20, those requirements are proposed to be amended. Requirements for 

letterpress, offset lithographic and flexible package printing ; industrial cleaning solvents; and large appliance coating are proposed for adoption as new requirements within RCSA section 22a-174-20 . Minor revisions to RCSA section 22a-174-32 are also proposed to adjust the interaction of RCSA section 22a-174-32 and RCSA section 22a-174-20, given the new 

requirements of RC SA section 22a-174-20 . . 

In association with revisions proposed in response to EPA's promulgation of the 2006/2007 

CTGs, DEP used this opportunity to propose adoption of requirements specific to cleaning of 

spray application equipment, at the request of some regulated entities . Spray gun cleaning is one of the cleaning operations that would, absent DEP's adoption of specific requirements, be regulated under the industrial cleaning solvents CTG. DEP also proposes to delete the 

architectural coating requirements in RCSA section 22a-174-20(g) given the adoption of more comprehensive requirements for such coatings in RCSA section 22a-174-41 ; and to propose the elimination of the reference to the federal Title V application timelines for Acid Rain program 

sources from RCSA section 22a-174-33(f). 

The text of the proposal is located in Attachment 2 to this report. 

III. Principal Considerations in Opposition to the Proposal 

No comments opposed moving the proposal forward to seek promulgation. Much of the 

comment requested revision of, and the addition of exemptions to, new subsections (ii) and (jj) of RCSA section 22a-174-20, concerning industrial solvent cleaning and spray gun cleaning. 

A detailed discussion of the comments and responses is set out in the next section of this report . 

IV. Summary of Comments 

Written comments were received from the following persons: 

1 . Anne Arnold, Manager 

Air Quality Planning Unit 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 1 

1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 

Boston, MA 02114-2023 

2. Richard A. Love 

Manager, Environmental Programs 

United Technologies Corporation 

United Technologies Building 

Hartford, CT 06101 

Richard.lovena utc.com 

3 . David M. Eherts 

Vice President, EHS and Chief Safety Officer 

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation 

6900 Main Street 

Stratford, CT 06615-9129 

chellerman(~a,sikors ky.com 
4. Steven Burke 

Principal Environmental, Health and Safety Engineer 

United States Surgical 

195 McDermott Road 

North Haven, CT 06473 

Steven.burke(a~covidien .com 

5 . Christine H. Porter 

Director, Regional Environmental Coordination Department 

Department of the Navy 

1510 Gilbert Street 

Norfolk, VA 23511-2737 

Leal.boyd(& ,navy.mil 

6. Eugene A. Brackbill, P.E. 

Principal Consulting Engineer 

Sci-Tech, Inc. 

185 Silas Dean Highway 

Wethersfield, CT 06109 

ebrackbill c(t),sci-techinc.com 

7 . Marci Y. Kinter 

Vice President - Government & Business Information 

Specialty Graphic Imaging Association 

10015 Main Street 

Fairfax, VA 22031 

marcika sgia.org 

8. Mark L. Flannery 

Director of Environmental Affairs 

Printing Industries of New England 

5 Crystal Pond Road 

Southborough, MA 01772-1758 

Mflannery04@pine .org 

All comments submitted are summarized below with DEP's responses. Commenters are 

associated with the individual comments below by the number assigned above. When changes to 

the proposed text are indicated in response to comment, new text is in bold font and deleted text 

is in strikethrough font. Comments not specific to a single portion of the proposal are set out 

first, followed by comments specific to certain provisions in the proposal, organized by 

regulatory section. 

General comment 

l. Comment- Connecticut's proposal addresses all of the 2006 and 2007 CTGs, except for the 

flat wood paneling CTG. We understand that DEP is not aware of any sources that would be 

subject to the CTG. If true, DEP should submit a negative declaration to EPA for this CTG 

including a summary of how DEP made its determination. [I] 
Response: EPA's understanding is correct: DEP is not aware of any sources in the state 

that meet the applicability of the flatwood paneling coating CTG. The same lack of 

awareness of sources is true for automobile and light-duty truck assembly coating and 

fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. 

DEP has proposed for public hearing a reasonably available control technology (RACT) 

update State Implementation Plan revision that includes negative declarations for three of 

the CTGs : flatwood paneling coating, automobile and light-duty truck assembly coating; 

and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. Following the public hearing on August 27, 

2009, DEP will submit that RACT update to EPA. 

2. Comment: The proposed requirements include some recordkeeping provisions . In addition, 

although not explicitly stated in the proposal, it appears that the coating and printing operations 

addressed in the proposal are also subject to the requirements of subsection (aa), recordkeeping 

and test methods, and subsection (bb), compliance methods, of Connecticut's RCSA section 22a174-20. DEP should verify this point in their response to comments, since recordkeeping 

provisions stated in the proposal are not sufficient to make all of the proposed requirements 

enforceable. Furthermore, it should be noted, that some of the provisions included in subsection 

(aa) and (bb) state that they apply to subsections (m) through (s) of RCSA section 22a- 174-20. 

Therefore, those requirements would only apply to the metal furniture and paper, film and foil 

coating operations addressed in the proposal, and not to the other categories included in the 

proposal (i .e ., large appliance coating or printing operations). [1 J 

Response: RCSA section 22a-174-20 currently includes CTG-responsive requirements 

in subsections (m) through (s) and (v). The record keeping requirements for those 

subsections are set out in subsection (aa), the compliance methods in subsection (bb) and 

an alternative emissions reductions option in subsection (cc) . In adopting the 2006 and 

2007 CTGs for coating and printing operations, DEP amended existing subsections (p) 

and (q) and added new subsections (ff) through (jj) . DEP's proposal did not fully take 

into account how subsections (aa) through (cc) apply to subsections (p), (q) and (ff) 

through (jj) . DEP appreciates the opportunity EPA's comment offers to correct this 

oversight. 

DEP intends that the requirements of subsections (aa) through (cc) shall not apply to new 

subsections (ff) through (jj) . As subsections (aa) through (cc) do not reference 

subsections (ff) through (jj) and as subsections (ff) through (jj) are drafted to stand 

independent of subsections (aa) through (cc), no revision is necessary to accomplish this 

result . 

For revised subsections (p) and (q), DEP intends that subsection (aa) shall continue to 

apply, except for subsection (aa)(10), which establishes a two-year record retention 

minimum. Since subsection (aa)(1) through (9) apply, the record keeping requirements in 

proposed subsections (p)(7)(B) through (D) and (q)(7)(B) and (C) should be deleted. 

DEP further intends that subsection (bb) shall not apply to subsections (p) and (q); DEP 

will need to add language to subsections (p) and (q) to achieve this result . DEP also 

intends that the alternative emission reduction option provided in subsection (cc) shall 

continue to be available to owners and operators operating under subsections (p) and (q). 

No change to the proposal is required to accomplish this result, although DEP should add 

language to allow those operations now operating pursuant to an order issued under 
subsection (cc)(2) or a permit issued under subsection (cc)(3) to continue to operate 

pursuant to such order or permit . 

So that subsections (p) and (q) are consistent with the preceding description, DEP should 

make the following revisions to subsections (p)(3), (p)(5), (p)(7), (q)(3), (q)(5) and (q)(7) 

and add new subsections (p)(8) and (q)(8) . In addition to making these changes, for 

administrative clarity, current subsection (q)(4) should be deleted and replaced entirely 

with new subsection (q)(3) . 

Subsection 

Exemptions and exceptions . 

The requirements of this subsection shall not apply to the following 

coatin~s or lubricant: 

Stencil coating, 

M So ety-indicating_ coating, 

(ER) Solid-film lubricant, 

(Div) Electric-insulating and thermal-conducting coating, 

(E-v) Touch-up and repair coating, or 

Evi Coating applied with a hand-held aerosol can; . 

An owner or operator of-a metal furniture coating unit operating in 

accordance with subdivision (5) of this subsection is exempt from any 

obligation to comply with subsection (bb) of this section. 

by the manufacturer, unless the owner or operator uses one of the followin 

methods to limit emissions of VOCs : 

Compliance options. Except as provided in subdivision (3) of this subsection, no 

owner or operator of a metal furniture coating unit shall apply any coating, 

inclusive of any VOC-containing materials added to the original coating supplied 

(A,) Use only coatings with an as-applied VOC content no greater than the 

level specified in Table 20(-p)-l, according to coating category and drying 

method. The VOC content limits of Table 20(p)-1 apply to the volume of 

coating as-applied, less water and less exempt VOC; Table 2003)4 

bso, .* :,. ., (

.,,.) f this so,.+ : .,

" ; .,* >>, Install, operate and maintain - --- 

according to the manufacturer's recommendations an emissions control 
system that reduces uncontrolled VOC emissions to the atmosphere from a 

coating unit by an overall control efficiency of at least 90%; . or 

************************************* 

Records. An owner or operator shall maintain records of the information 

necessary for the commissioner to determine compliance with the applicable 

requirements of this subsection, as s:. All records shall be: 

iA Made available to the commissioner to inspect and copy upon request; and 

fjB Maintained for five years from the date such record is created; and 

As described in subsection (aa)(1) through (9) of this section. 

the fellow* 

, of an, ea*:ne or eleanine solvent used 

An owner or operator of a metal furniture coating unit operating under a 

valid order issued pursuant to subsection (cc)(2) of this section or a valid permit 

issued pursuant to subsection (cc)(3) of this section shall operate as required in such 

order or permit, regardless of the requirements of this subsection. 

Subsection (g) 

[(4) The provisions of this subsection do not apply to any coating line with a 

continuous web that has both paper coating and printing stations and that is subject to the 

requirements of section 22a-174-20(v) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies .] 

Exemptions and exceptions. 

The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to the following 

activities: 
LAi) Coating performed on an 

and printing stations and that is conducted pursuant to subsection 

(v) of this section, 

aii The application of sizing or water-based clays in association with 

the use of a papermaking machine, or 

Eiii The application of inks coatings or adhesives in association with 

flexible package printing conducted pursuant to subsection (f) of 

this section or offset lithographic or letterpress printing conducted 

pursuant to subsection (gg) of this section. 

B~ An owner or operator of a paper, film and foil coating operation 

operating in compliance with subdivisions (4) and (5) of this 

subsection is exempt from any obligation to comply with subsection 

(bb). of this section. 

Additional requirements. The owner and operator of any paper, film and foil 

coating line with a potential to emit greater than 25 tons per year, prior to the use of 

controls, shall use one of the following methods to control emissions of VOCs: 

(A,) Use only coatings that result in VOC emissions no greater than the 

applicable emission limit of subparagrraph(A)(i) or (A)(ii) of this 

subdivision calculated either per coating or per coating line, as provided 

in subpara aph A)(iii) of this subdivision. 

this ~r , .+ ;  

ii 

For all coatings except pressure sensitive tape and label coatings, 

use only coatings that result in VOC emissions no greater than 0.40 

kilograms of VOC per kilogram of coating solids applied, 

Use only pressure sensitive tape and label coatings that result in 

VOC emissions no greater than 0.20 kg VOC/kg of coating solids 

applied, and 

The VOC emissions limits of subparagraphs (A)(i) and (A)(ii) of 

this subdivision may be met either if every coating applied 

individually meets the pplicable emission limit or if the daily 

weighted average of the VOC content of every coating used on a 

single coating line meets the applicable emission limit; 

Install, operate and maintain 

according to the manufacturer's recommendations an emissions control 
_system that reduces uncontrolled VOC emissions to the atmosphere from a 

coating line by an overall control efficiency of at least 90%; or 

************************************* 

Q Records. An owner or operator shall maintain records of the information 

necessary for the commissioner to determine compliance with the applicable 

requirements of this subsection as follows.- . All records shall be: 

OA) Made available to the commissioner to inspect and cony upon reques t; and 

fjB Maintained for five years from the date such record is created; and 

As described in subsection (aa)(1) throm h (9) of this section. 

0 

* ^*« 

o uue c~ 

the fellewiaqF- 

"`a quantity "f "" r .,at :* " ..1°n" "' solvent used 

c. .,l*ro.,.4 . . , 04 

An owner or operator of a paper, film and foil coating line operating under a 

valid order issued pursuant to subsection (cc)(2) of this section or a valid permit 

issued pursuant to subsection (cc)(3) of this section shall operate as required in such 

order or permit, regardless of the requirements of this subsection. 

As stated above, DEP does not intend that subsections (aa) through (cc) apply to new 

subsections (ff) through (jj) . However, EPA has indicated that the record keeping 

requirements proposed in subsections (fl) through (jj) are not acceptable to support 

enforcement of the proposed control requirements . EPA indicated verbally that the 

record keeping requirements of subsection (aa) are preferable to those proposed in 

subsections (ff) through (jj) and that EPA finds the term "may" particularly troublesome, 

as it appears to make the existence, rather than the form, of records discretionary. 

DEP should revise the record keeping requirements of subsections (ff) through (jj) to 

make the requirement to maintain records clearly mandatory and to specify the required 

frequency and quality of records. DEP should also specify record keeping requirements 

for sources below the applicability threshold for each regulated activity so that DEP 

might verify the lack of applicability of the control requirements . DEP does not believe 
that maintenance of such records is burdensome, since facilities need to track the use of 

coatings, inks or other similar materials for inventory and quality control purposes . 

In each of subsections (ff) through (jj), the subdivision addressing records should be 

replaced in the format provided through the example of subsection (ff)(5), as follows: 

(5) Records. 

(A) An owner or operator of any flexible package printing press shall 

maintain records of the information necessary for the commissioner 

to determine compliance with the applicable requirements of this 

subsection. All such records shall be: 

(i) Made available to the commissioner to inspect and copy upon 

request, and 

(ii) Maintained for five years from the date such record is created. 

(B) An owner or operator of a flexible package printing press that meets 

or exceeds the applicability threshold of subdivision (2) of this 

subsection shall maintain daily records of all inks, coatings, adhesives 

or cleaning solvents used, as follows: 

(i) Name and description of each ink, coating, adhesive or 

cleaning solvent, 

(ii) VOC content of each ink, coating, adhesive or cleaning solvent, 

as-applied, and the associated calculations . As-applied VOC 

content shall be determined using an EPA reference method, a 

California Air Resources Board reference method or other 

method approved by the commissioner, 

(iii) VOC content of each ink, coating, adhesive or cleaning solvent, 

as-supplied, 

(iv) The amount of each ink, coating, adhesive or cleaning solvent, 

(v) A Material Safety Data Sheet for each ink, coating, adhesive or 

cleaning solvent, 

(vi) Documentation of control device efficiency and capture 

efficiency, if applicable, using an applicable EPA reference 

method or alternate method as approved by the commissioner, 

and 

(vii) Date and type of maintenance performed on air pollution 

control equipment, if applicable. 
10 

(C) The owner or operator of any flexible package printing press for 

which the 12-month rolling aggregate of materials purchased for the 

printing operation is below the applicability threshold of this 

subsection shall maintain material purchase records to verify that the 

applicability threshold is not exceeded. 

The same format shall be used, with appropriate adjustments for the name of the 

regulated activity and the types of VOC-containing material, as a replacement for 

proposed subsections (gg)(7), (hh)(7), (ii)(6) and (jj)(6), except that the requirements of sample subparagraph (C) are not applicable to subsection (jj) . Subsections (ii)(6) and (jj)(6) should also include a requirement to maintain records to verify the applicability of certain exemptions and exceptions . 

3. Comment: The subdivision and subsection designations are not consistent throughout RCSA section 22a-174-20. DEP should take the opportunity provided by this proposal to make the numbering consistent throughout. [6] 

Response : DEP should not revise the proposal in response to this comment. The 

proposal does not include all of RCSA section 22a-174-20 . While older subsections of 

RCSA section 22a-174-20 are not numbered and lettered precisely in the format 

recommended by the Legislative Commissioner's Office Manual for Drafting 

Regulations, which sets the standard for formatting new language and for revising old 

language, the differences are not significant to the identification of locations within 

RCSA section 22a-174-20 and so do not require DEP to open the entire section for 

revision. 

4. Comment: DEP should consider adding a definition of "coating" to subsections (n), (o) and (q) or add a definition of "coating" to RCSA section 22a-174-1 to make clear what is considered 

a coating in all contexts . [6] 

Response: DEP should not revise the proposal in response to this comment. Of the 

subsections to which the commenter suggests adding a definition of "coating," only 

subsection (q) is included in the proposal; subsection (q)(2)(C) includes a definition of 

"coating ." As a general matter of regulatory interpretation, terms that are not defined 

should be assigned their ordinary meaning, and the commenter should assume that is how 

"coating" is used in subsections without a specific meaning ascribed . "Coating" is not a 

good candidate for addition to RC SA section 22a-174-1, since, in that general context, 

the term would likely have little meaning beyond its ordinary use. 

RCSA section 22a-174-20(f), Organic solvents 

5. Comment: RCSA section 22a-174-20(f) should be clarified to apply to coating operations . 

Subsection (f) originated in LA Rule 66, which was provided as guidance for the original round 

of State Implementation Plans in 1972. The portion of that old rule reflected in subsection (f) 

was designed primarily for coating operations . [2] 

Response: As the commenter suggests, subsection (f) does regulate coating operations in 

the absence of specific requirements in other subsections of RC SA section 22a-174-20 . 

However, regardless of its origins, subsection (f) has been applied to VOC-emitting 

activities other than coating. While DEP agrees that subsection (f) could be less 
11 

ambiguous in the scope of its applicability, the subsection will likely continue to apply to 

a variety of activities . DEP should consider revising the applicability of subsection (f) in 

a future rulemaking, as discussed further in the response to Comment 6. 

6. Comment: Subdivision (9)(C) states that subsection (f) shall not apply to : "The use of any 

organic material where the as-applied volatile content of the material consists only of water and 

organic solvent, and the organic solvent content does not exceed 20% by volume of the 

material ." This appears to mean that a material must contain both water and organic solvent to 

qualify for exemption. Would a material be exempt if it contains less than 20% solvent but does 

not contain water? What if water is part of the volatile content of the organic material? 

Subtracting the water content would be consistent with the CTG VOC definition, i.e ., lb 

VOC/gal, less water. 

The language might be more clearly stated as follows: 

" . . .the as-applied volatile content of the material consists of organic solvent or organic 

solvent and water, and the organic content does not exceed 20% by volume of the 

material , less water." [6] 

Response: Regardless of intentions to the contrary, DEP agrees that the proposed 

language for RCSA section 22a-174-20(f)(9)(C) is as obscure as the existing language, in 

part because the terms "organic material" and "organic solvent" are not defined. At this 

time, DEP should proceed only with the proposed revision to subparagraph (A) of 

subsection (f)(9) and retain the current language of subparagraph (C). 

To address the ambiguity infused through subsection (f), DEP should propose a complete 

revision of subsection (f) in the future to reduce ambiguity and improve the air quality 

protection provided by subsection (f), given that the control requirements of the 

subsection are quite old. In anticipation of a comprehensive review of subsection (f), 

DEP should retain subsections (f)(2) and (f)(13), which were proposed for deletion, as 

well as subsection (f)(9)(C). 

An additional consideration against the proposed removal of subsection (f)(2) is that such 

a deletion would leave emissions resulting from the use of a "highly photochemically 

reactive solvent" now regulated under subsection (f)(2) with no limitation except as 

provided in subsection (f)(4), which has much higher discharge limits than subsection 

(f)(2) . Such a result is unacceptable. 

Since DEP is, at this time, retaining subsections (f)(2) and (f)(13), DEP should also retain 

RCSA section 22a-174-20(h) and (i), rather than deleting subsections (h) and (i) as 

proposed. Subsection (f)(2) references subsection (i), and subsection (f)(13) uses terms 

defined in subsection (i). If, at a future date, DEP revises subsection (f) in toto, DEP 

should consider also eliminating subsections (h) and (i). 

7. Comment: Subsection (f)(11) exempts "such materials which exhibit a boiling point higher 

than 220 degrees F." Subsection (f)(11) should apply the boiling point exemption to the 

properties of the whole material and not the properties of the material's constituents . [2] 
12 

Response: Subdivision (11) of subsection (f) is not within the scope of this proceeding, 

and so DEP should not make any revisions in response to the comment. DEP should 

consider this comment in any future effort to revise subsection (f). 

RCSA section 22a-174-20(l), Metal cleaning 

8. Comment: A phrase appears to be missing from subsection (0(1)(K)(ii), namely "that 

exposes such metal parts." The named gases are not being reworked. The subclause should be 

revised to read in a manner similar to subclause (iv), as follows: "In the research, development , 

manufacture, and rework that exposes such metal parts to ozone, nitrous oxide, . . . ." [6] 

Response: The comment misinterprets subsection (0(1)(K)(ii), as the subclause is 

referring to the manufacture of the named compounds. The phrase "research, 

development, manufacture and rework" was used to parallel the structure of subclauses 

(i) and (iii), but the comment shows that the phrase is confusing in subclause (ii) . The 

definition is stated more clearly if subclause (ii) only refers to manufacturing of the 

compounds. Research, development and rework were added to subclause (ii) in response 

to comment in a previous rulemaking, where the phrase is most relevant to precision parts 

and electronic parts, for which the cleanliness of the metal parts may be of utmost 

importance. Accordingly, subclause (ii) of the definition of "special and extreme solvent 

metal cleaning" should be revised as follows : 

(K) "Special and extreme solvent metal cleaning" means the use of a cold cleaning 

unit to clean metal parts where such metal parts are used: 

(i) In the research, development, manufacture and rework of electronic parts, 

assemblies, boxes, wiring harnesses, sensors and connectors used in 

aerospace service, 

(ii) In the - ° reh, development, &+-w-' ' rmanufacturin~ 

ozone, nitrous oxide, fluorine, chlorine, bromine, halogenated compounds 

or oxygen in concentrations greater than [twenty-three percent (23%)] 

23%, 

(iii) In the research, development, manufacture and rework of high precision 

products for which contamination must be minimized in accordance with a 

customer or other specification, or 

(iv) In a manner that exposes such metal parts to ozone, nitrous oxide, fluorine, 

chlorine, bromine, halogenated compounds or oxygen in concentrations 

greater than [twenty-three percent (23%)] 23%. 

9. Comment: Subdivision (2)(C) includes an exception for 1,1,1 trichloroethane and 

trichlorotrifluoroethene, which are Group I ozone depleting substances that were banned from 

production and use after 1996, with a few "essential use" exemptions. Regardless, exempt VOC 

are being or may be used for metal cleaning and as additional volatile organic material may be 

exempt in the future, subdivision (2)(C) should be revised as follows : 

"Metal cleaning equipment which uses an exempt volatile organic compound as 

identified in 40 CFR 51 .100(s)(1), as amended from time to time." [6] 
13 

Response: DEP should not expand the exemption provided in subsection (0(2)(C) to 

include all exempt VOCs . The use of exempt VOCs in metal cleaning would by 

definition be exempt from the VOC content limits of subsection (0. Other provisions of 

subsection (0, such as work practices, should continue to apply. 

RCSA section 22a-174-20(s)(2)(B), Miscellaneous metal parts and products 

10. Comment: DEP should incorporate the Aerospace CTG into RCSA section 22a-174-20. 

The exemption for coating of the exterior surface of assembled aircraft now included in RCSA 

section 22a-174-20(s)(2)(B)(vii) is not broad enough to address the coating activities performed 

at UTC facilities . Often, coating characteristics are mandated by military and other Federal 

agency requirements and the mandated characteristics do not always allow for compliance with 

the requirements of RCSA section 22a-174-20(s). [2] 

Response: DEP should not make any change in response to this comment at this time. 

The recommended adoption of the Aerospace CTG is outside the scope of this 

proceeding. DEP is aware that the aerospace industry is subject to a number of 

constraints, including safety and military specifications for aerospace parts and products. 

To date, DEP has addressed the concerns of the aerospace industry within individual 

regulatory provisions and through permits and orders . Should DEP determine that a new 

approach is preferable, DEP may propose to take a different course in a future 

rulemaking. 

RCSA section 22a-174-20(ee), RACT for large sources 

11. Comment: How will the deletion of subsection (ee) affect orders issued under the 

requirements of this subsection? Would they lack regulatory authority given the elimination of 

the underlying regulation? Also, if the subsection is deleted, internal references to the subsection 

should be deleted, e.g., subsections (cc)(1), (cc)(2), (cc)(3), (dd)(1) and (ii)(3)(iii) . [6] 

Response: The deletion of subsection (ee) would not invalidate orders issued under that 

subsection, since the law in effect at the time the order is issued would govern the order. 

If subsection (ee) is eliminated, should either DEP or the other party to such an order 

wish to renegotiate, a new order would need to be issued under different regulatory 

authority or a new compliance approach would be pursued. 

The proposed deletion of subsection (ee) is intended as an administrative improvement 

rather than to achieve any air quality benefit. Any new source of VOC emissions would 

either comply with an applicable subsection of RCSA section 22a-174-20 or would 

comply with RCSA section 22a-174-32 ; no new orders will be issued under RCSA 

section 22a-174-20(ee) since the ability to issue such an order has a date restriction. 

Given that the proposed deletion has created concern in some members of the regulated 

community and given that there is no significant advantage to DEP to phase out all the 

existing orders issued under RCSA section 22a-174-20(ee), DEP should retain subsection 

(ee) in the final recommended version of RCSA section 22a-174-20. In retaining the 

subsection, DEP should revise the references in subsection (ee)(1) to include the new 

subsections that are part of this proposal, just as is proposed in RCSA section 

22a-174-32(b)(3) . As a result, subdivision (1) of subsection (ee) will appear as follows: 
14 

(1) [subsections (a), (b) or (1) through (y), inclusive, of section 22a-174-20 of the 

Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies;] any one of the following subsections of 

section 22a-174-20 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies: (a), (b), (l) 

through (y) or (ff) through (jj) ; 

Since DEP is retaining subsection (ee), there is no need to address the internal citations as 

recommended by the commenter. 

12. Comment: DEP is proposing to delete RCSA section 22a-174-20(ee). This regulation 

requires a VOC RACT determination for any site with potential VOC emissions greater than 100 

tons per year. In 1990, Consent Order 8010 was issued to Sikorsky's Stratford site to regulate its 

eight spray booths in operation at that time and used for coating helicopter and helicopter parts 

(and other now obsolete equipment). This order was issued as a source-specific VOC RACT 

determination for the paint booths, which were not subject to DEP's control technology 

guideline-based regulations. Subsequently, Sikorsky submitted an Alternative Emission 

Reduction Plan, as allowed by 22a-174-20(cc), because several of the coatings used could not 

meet the limits in Order 8010. Several addendums and Consent Order 8246 have since been 

issued to Sikorsky, which allows emissions offsets to limit the VOC emissions from painting at 

the Stratford site . 

With the deletion of RCSA section 22a-174-20(ee), Sikorsky does not have the assurance that it 

can continue legally to operate its Stratford paint booths . The consent order was originally 

issued under RCSA section 22a-174-20(ee). Sikorsky is very concerned about potentially 

ambiguous enforceability issues. If the regulation is deleted, what is the Order's regulatory 

authority? Can other conditions be imposed absent the referenced regulation? Sikorsky 

recommends that the regulations be amended to recognize its operation under a consent order 

originally issued under RCSA section 22a-174-20(ee). Alternately, RCSA section 22a-174-

20(s)(2)(B)(vii), which exempts the exterior surface of assembled aircraft, could be expanded to 

include all aerospace applications . Coating of aerospace parts, both interior surfaces and preassembled aircraft and parts, is routinely performed at many Sikorsky and supporting facilities . 

In many applications, the coatings' extreme performance characteristics are mandated by 

military and other specifications . The extreme performance characteristics required in such 

cases do not always allow for coatings that comply with the VOC paint limits in RCSA section 

22a-174-20(s), CTG-based subsection for miscellaneous metal parts coating. [3] 

Response: DEP's retention of subsection (ee) as described in the response to Comment 

11 addresses the concerns raised in the comment related to Order 8010 . Concerning the 

recommended expansion of RCSA section 22a-174-20(s)(2)(B)(vii), DEP should not so 

proceed at this time. See the response to Comment 10 for more discussion of this topic. 

RCSA section 22a-174-20 

13. Comment: The applicability of subsection (gg) is based on actual daily emissions from 

offset lithographic or letterpress printing and related cleaning . The CTG also allows for an 

applicability threshold of 3 tons per rolling 12-month period . 

DEP should revise the applicability threshold from the daily actual VOC emissions to the use of 

purchase records or actual use records of raw materials that would be equivalent to the three tons 

per rolling 12-month threshold. VOC emissions from offset lithography and letterpress printing 
15 

are generally from the following sources: cleanings solvents, fountain solution additives and 

solvent-based inks. 

To determine a conservative material use amount equivalent to the three tons per 12-month 

threshold, the following assumptions are reasonable : 

" Cleaning solvents are 100% VOC and have a product density of 7 pounds per gallon ; 

" Fountain solution additives have the following VOC contents and product densities: 

o Alcohol: 6 .6 pounds per gallon, 100% VOC 

o Alcohol substitutes: 8 .5 pounds per gallon, 90% VOC; and 

" Solvent-based ink is 45% VOC with a retention factor of 20% and a density of nine 

pounds per gallon . 

Using these assumptions, the material use amount of 855 gallons per rolling 12-month of 

cleaning solvents, fountain solution and ink combined would be a conservative estimate 

equivalent to three tons per rolling 12-month period . The applicability should be written using 

either of the following thresholds: three tons of VOC per rolling 12 month period, or 855 gallons 

of cleaning solvents, fountain solution additives and heatset ink purchased or used per rolling 12-

month period . [8] 

Response: DEP should revise the proposal in response to this comment. Although DEP 

has prior to 2002 used the 15 pound per day actual emissions threshold for many of the 

CTG-based requirements in RCSA section 22a-174-20, the use of a longer averaging 

period for determining applicability is consistent with DEP's current approach to source 

permitting and makes for easier applicability determinations and record keeping. As 

indicated in the comment, an applicability threshold with a 12-month averaging period is 

acceptable to EPA. 

In 2002, DEP revised its new source review permitting program to focus individual 

source permitting processes on sources of air emissions with a potential to emit of any 

single pollutant greater than 15 tons per year (tpy). As an alternative to obtaining an 

individual permit for certain equipment and operations, DEP adopted permit-by-rule 

requirements in RCSA sections 22a-174-3b and 22a-174-3c. The two permit-by-rule 

regulations set out requirements that, if followed, would limit actual emissions to levels 

below the 15 tpy permitting threshold. RCSA sections 22a-174-3b and 22a-174-3c also 

provide for ease in record keeping and compliance determinations . The applicability and 

compliance determinations in RCSA sections 22a-174-3b and 22a-174-3c are generally 

based on a 12-month rolling aggregate of materials purchased or used, and the record 

keeping requirements are, in some instances, satisfied with usage records or purchase 

records. 

As the CTG requirements are similarly designed to limit emissions from equipment and 

activities that may not be subject to individual permitting, similar applicability 

thresholds, based on a 12-month period, are appropriate. DEP accepts the commenter's 

suggested applicability of 855 gallons of cleaning solvents, fountain solution additives 

and heatset ink purchased per rolling 12-month period . 

In sum, DEP should revise the applicability of subsection (gg)(2) to 855 gallons of 

cleaning solvents, fountain solution additives and solvent-based ink purchased in 

aggregate per rolling 12-month period . 
16 

In allowing for a longer averaging time to determine applicability, some facilities that 

would be subject to the requirements of subsection (gg) if applicability was determined 

on a daily basis will go unregulated. The number of such facilities, which is likely small, 

is acceptable . As in source permitting, sources with a rare, high activity day that results 

in a singular or occasional breach of the applicability threshold should not be required to 

meet the VOC RACT requirements. The longer averaging period imposes the 

requirements on sources with emissions that consistently exceed a level where the cost of 

control is appropriate, allowing the smallest and typically less sophisticated operations to 

remain outside of the regulation . The longer applicability period also allows DEP to 

focus its enforcement and compliance-assistance resources on the regulation of the larger 

operations . Not including sources for a short-term spike in emissions is particularly 

important since EPA applies a "once in, always in" policy for RACT sources . If a 

source's actual emissions ever exceed the RACT applicability threshold, then the source 

is permanently subject to RACT requirements until such time as operations covered by 

the RACT category are ceased. 

Subsection (gg)(2) should be revised to read as follows: 

(2) Applicability. The provisions of this subsection apply to the owner or operator of 

any offset lithographic or letterpress printing press or- presses 

who 

purchases for the printing operation at least 855 gallons of cleaning solvents, 

fountain solution additives and solvent-based inks in aggregate per any rolling 12-

month period. Any owner or operator of an offset lithographic or a letterpress printing 

press _r_ __ ..__ . .__~ _.. 

r^*;~-~ ,~,'~~ ; .. ~,_ .,~ .  this ~ . ;o * * . .~'~ _~~' . .~ shall : 

(A) Comply with the requirements of this subsection no later than January 1, 

2010 or, for a source that commences operation after January 1, 2010, the 

date on which the source commences operation; and 

(B) Remain subject to this subsection. 

er~tis~ie~: 

14. Comment: Alcohol is not the only additive used in fountain solution in most offset 

lithographic printing facilities . The majority of offset lithographic printers will use a 

combination of acid fountain solution concentrates, alcohol substitutes, non-piling concentrates 

and possibly alcohol . To better capture all the potential VOC-containing materials in the 

fountain solutions, the following recommendation replaces existing "alcohol or alcohol 

substitute" weight percentage requirements : . . .maintain the as-applied VOC content of the 

fountain solution at or below x.x% by weight. The weight percent proposed in this section 

would remain the same but be based on as-applied VOC content instead of "alcohol" or "alcohol 

substitute" weight percentages. [8] 

Response: The compounds other than alcohols that are used in fountain solution 

typically have a lower volatility than alcohol, which is why alcohol is the focus for 

fountain solution restrictions . Restating the fountain solution restrictions of subsection 

(gg)(3) in terms of the restrictions on the VOC content rather than the concentration of 
17 

alcohol is acceptable for fountain solutions that contain alcohol since alcohol is typically 

100% VOC, which would make the VOC content and alcohol content limitations 

equivalent . For fountain solutions with no alcohol, the limitation should be on the 

amount of alcohol substitute, since alcohol substitute will typically have a VOC content 

less than 100%. Subsection (gg)(3) should be revised, as follows: 

Fountain solutions. 

(A) The owner or operator of a heatset web offset lithographic printing press 

with a fountain solution reservoir of at least one gallon in capacity shall: 

(i) 

) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

weight; Limit the as-applied VOC content of the fountain 

solution to 1.6% by weight or less, 

, If the fountain 

solution is refrigerated to below 60°F, limit the as-applied 

VOC content of the fountain solution to 3% by weight or less, 

or 

Use fountain solution that 

contains no alcohol and limit the alcohol substitute content of 

the fountain solution to 5% by weight or less . 

The owner of a sheet-fed offset lithographic printing press with a 

minimum sheet size of greater than l 1x17 inches and a fountain solution 

reservoir greater than one gallon in capacity shall: 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

weight, Limit the as-applied VOC content of the fountain 

solution to 5% by weight or less, 

; If the 

fountain solution is refrigerated to below 60°F, limit the asapplied VOC content of the fountain solution to 8.5% or less, 

or 

Use fountain solution that contains no 

alcohol and limit the alcohol substitute content of the fountain 

solution to 5% by weight or less . 

(C) The owner of a coldset web offset lithographic printing press with a 

fountain solution reservoir of at least one gallon in capacity shall use a-5-OA 

a fountain solution that 
18 

contains no alcohol ' and that has an alcohol 

substitute content of 5% by weight or less . 

15. Comment: DEP should add a new subdivision (8) to subsection (gg) to include retention factors and capture efficiencies for materials used in offset lithographic printing. The CTG 

includes retention factors and capture efficiencies, and these have been included in a number of state rules based on the CTG. Recommended language for new subdivision (8) is as follows: 

(8) Retention factors and capture efficiencies . For the purposes of determining VOC 

emissions from offset lithographic printing operations, the following retention factors and 

capture efficiencies shall be used: 

(A) A portion of the VOC contained in inks and cleaning solution is retained in the 

printed web or in the shop towels used for cleaning . The following retention 

factors shall be used: 

(i) A 20% VOC retention factor shall be used for heatset inks printed on 

absorptive substrates, meaning 80% of the VOC in the ink is emitted 

during the printing process and is available for capture and control by an 

add-on pollution control device . 

(ii) A 95% VOC retention factor shall be used for sheet-fed and non-heatset 

web inks printed on absorptive substrates, meaning 5% of the VOC in the 

ink is emitted during the printing process. 

(iii) A 50% VOC retention factor shall be used for cleaning solution VOC in 

shop towels for cleaning solutions with a VOC composite vapor pressure 

of no more than 10mmHg at 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit) if 

the contaminated shop towels are kept in closed containers, meaning 50% 

of the VOC used on the shop towels is emitted during the cleaning 

process. 

(B) A portion of the VOC contained in inks, fountain solutions and automatic blanket 

washes on heatset presses is captured in the press dryer for control by add-on 

pollution control devices. The following capture efficiencies are to be used: 

(i) 100% VOC carryover efficiency shall be used for inks. All the VOC in 

ink that is not retained is assumed to be volatilized in the press dryer. 

Capture efficiency testing for heatset dryers is not required if it is 

demonstrated that pressure in the dryer is negative relative to the 

surrounding press room and the airflow is into the dryer. 

(ii) 70% VOC carryover efficiency shall be used for fountain solutions 

containing alcohol substitutes. 

(iii) 40% VOC carryover efficiency shall be used for automatic blanket wash 

solutions with a VOC composite vapor pressure of no more than l OmmHg 

at 20°C (68° F). [8] 
19 

Response: DEP should not add the retention factors and capture efficiencies to 

subsection (gg). Given that the applicability is written in terms of materials purchased, 

retention factors and capture efficiencies are only relevant to determining whether an 

operation exceeds the 25 tons of VOC potential emissions threshold of subdivision (4). 

DEP did not specify procedures for determining emissions from offset lithographic 

printing operations to provide the owner of any such operation the flexibility to calculate 

potential emissions in a manner that takes into account the characteristics of that 

operation. A person may use the default retention factors and capture efficiencies of the 

CTG, if appropriate to the operation. 

RCSA section 22a-174-20(hh)(5)(C), Large appliance coatings 

16. Comment: Subsection (hh)(5)(C) of the proposed large appliance coating rule allows a 

company to seek an alternative means of compliance if approved by the Commissioner. Such 

alternatives however, must also be approved by EPA. Therefore, we recommend that 

Connecticut's proposed large appliance coating rule be revised to require those seeking 

alternatives to comply with the more detailed requirements of Connecticut's existing RCSA 

section 22a- 174-20(cc), as is done in Connecticut's proposed metal furniture and paper, film and 

foil coating rules . [1] 

Response: The proposed large appliance coating requirements differ from the proposed 

requirements for metal furniture and paper, film and foil coating in that the large 

appliance coating requirements are entirely new while the proposed metal furniture and 

paper, film and foil coating requirements are up-to-date versions of existing 

requirements. As noted in the comment, subsections (aa), (bb) and (cc) of RCSA section 

22a-174-20 contain requirements of general applicability (i.e ., record keeping, 

compliance methods and alternative emissions reductions) to the source- or activityspecific requirements of subsections (m) through (s) and (v). DEP does not intend to 

have the requirements of subsections (aa), (bb) and (cc) apply to the proposed new 

requirements of RCSA section 22a-174-20, and, hence, DEP did not refer to subsection 

(cc) in the alternative compliance requirements for large appliance coating operations. 

To address EPA's concern, DEP should add a requirement for the Administrator to 

approve alternative compliance methods to subsection (hh)(5)(C) . While EPA 

recommends that the detailed requirements for alternative compliance requests should 

also be added to subsection (hh), DEP should not include those requirements in the final 

proposal since the "other information' 'provision of subclause (iii) allows for information 

equivalent to that specified in subsection (cc) to be obtained, as necessary. Subsection 

(hh)(5)(C) should be revised as follows: 

(C) With the approval of the commissioner and the Administrator, use an alternative 

means to achieve a level of control equivalent to that required in subparagraph 

(A) or (B) of this subdivision. An owner or operator shall submit a request to the 

commissioner and the Administrator to use an alternative means of compliance, 

and such request shall include: 

(i) A description of the method, 

(ii) A demonstration of the level of emissions control achieved, and 
20 

(iii) Any other information requested by the commissioner or the 

Administrator. 

RCSA section 22a-174-20(ii), Industrial solvent cleaning 

17. Comment: The exemption for aerospace facilities in subsection (ii)(3)(A)(iv) appears to be 

included based on DEP's recognition of the multiple agency requirements that apply to 

aerospace facilities and the need to ensure that those requirements are not in conflict. DEP 

should categorically exempt a11 aerospace manufacturing and rework sources (major and minor) 

from subsection (ii), as all meet the same flight safety and governmental restrictions . In support 

of this exemption, the commenters note: 

" Solvents such as methyl ethyl ketone, acetone and isopropyl alcohol are used in 

aerospace manufacturing and repair facilities as required in specifications of the Federal 

Aviation Administration or the Department of Defense. No alternatives that meet the 

VOC or vapor pressure limits are approved under the specifications. 

" The Bay Area Air Quality Management District rules, which are referenced in the 

Industrial Cleaning Solvents CTG, support an exemption for all aerospace facilities, 

major and minor. 

As an alternative to the categorical exemption for aerospace facilities, DEP should exempt 

aerospace facilities that use cleaning solvents "in accordance with 40 CFR 63, subpart GG" to 

exempt sources whether or not they are major and are subject to the Aerospace NESHAP. 

Another commenter recommends the following language to achieve the same result -- that the 

exemption of subclause (iv) applies to aerospace facilities regardless of facility size: 

(iv) At any aerospace manufacturing and rework facility that is a major or minor 

source provided that cleaning solvent is used consistent with the requirements of 

and the exemption in 40 CFR 63, subpart GG. [2, 3, 6] 

Response: The intended result of the language proposed in subsection (ii)(3)(A)(iv) is 

the exemption of every aerospace manufacturing and rework facility, regardless of 

whether the facility is a "major source" as defined in 40 CFR 63.2, from any obligation to 

comply with subsection (ii) . The exemption, as proposed, is intended to be contingent on 

the aerospace facility using cleaning solvents as required in 40 CFR 63, subpart GG, 

since those requirements adequately limit VOC emissions from cleaning. The phrase 

"used in accordance with" means that an aerospace facility observes the housekeeping 

requirements, cleaning solvent composition or vapor pressure requirements and spray gun 

cleaning requirements set out in 40 CFR 63 .744, inclusive of the exemptions . For those 

facilities that are not subject to 40 CFR 63 subpart GG, compliance with the record 

keeping and reporting obligations is not encompassed by the phrase "used in accordance 

with." 

As DEP's intention is consistent with the result requested by commenters and yet was not 

understood as such, the proposed language is not clear and should be replaced. 

Considering the replacement text recommended in comment and the intended result, 

subclause (iv) should be written as follows: 

(iv) 

At any aerospace manufacturing and rework 
21 

facility, provided that cleaning solvent is used in accordance with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.744, inclusive of exemptions, 

18. Comment: As an alternative to the categorical exemption for aerospace facilities requested 

in Comment 17, the exemption requested in RCSA section 22a-174-20(ii)(3)(A)(viii) should be 

broadened in two respects : 

" The exemption provided in RCSA section 22a-174-20(ii)(3)(A)(viii) should be broadened 

to include not only the use of cleaning solvents as specified in standards or specifications 

issued by the United States Department of Defense but also specifications approved by 

the Department of Defense. [2, 3] 

" The exemption provided in RCSA section 22a-174-20(ii)(3)(A)(viii) should be broadened 

to include not only specifications of the Department of Defense but also the Federal 

Aviation Administration and other agencies or customers that provide specifications for 

the manufacture and repair of flight critical parts. For example, the FAA often specifies 

the use of MEK, acetone and IPA to provide a necessary level of cleanliness, and no 

acceptable substitutes are available that meet the 0.42 lb/VOC/gal limit of the proposed 

regulation. Even if a suitable substitute were available, a lengthy demonstration of 

performance would need to be prepared for FAA approval, a process that would take time 

beyond the January 1, 2010 compliance date. [2, 3] 

Language that would broaden the exemption in subclause (viii) in both respects might read as 

follows: 

(viii) In cleaning, including surface preparation prior to coating, necessary to meet a 

standard or specification issued or approved by the United States Department of 

Defense, FAA, NASA, customer or other regulating entity . [2, 3] 

Response: Although the categorical exemption for aerospace facilities as recommended 

in Comment 17 granted,. DEP should revise subclause (viii) to address the concerns raised 

in comment since subclause (viii) is applicable to facilities other than aerospace 

manufacturing, and such other facilities may have similar concerns. DEP should revise 

subdivision (3)(A)(viii) as follows in the final recommended version of subsection (ii) : 

(viii) In cleaning, including surface preparation prior to coating, necessary to meet a 

standard or specification of issued or approved by the United States Department 

of Defense, Federal Aviation Administration or other federal government 

entity. Any person claiming exemption pursuant to this subclause shall 

maintain records of the standard or specification, 

19. Comment: DEP should add a new exemption to subsection (ii) to allow for the use of noncompliant solvent in amounts greater than the 55-gallon exemption. The exemption could take 

the following form: 

(A) The use of a cleaning solvent that does not comply with subdivision (4)(A) of this 

subsection may be allowed upon approval by the Commissioner. 

(B) Any request for approval under this subdivision shall be made in writing to the 

Commissioner and shall include, at a minimum, the following information: 
22 

(i) The scope of the activity, 

(ii) An assessment of alternative materials and procedures, 

(iii) Quantification of the amount of VOC that would be emitted as a result of 

such activity, and 

(iv) The dates on which the activity will occur. [6] 

Response: DEP should add the suggested exemption to subsection (ii) . Although DEP 

is adding or broadening other exemptions in response to comment and narrowing the type 

of activities subject to subsection (ii), it is conceivable that an alternate approach to 

compliance may be necessary for a few, limited situations. The exemption should be 

added as new subclause (xiv) of subdivision (3), as follows : 

(xiv) That exceeds the applicable limit of subdivision (4)(A) of this 

subsection, if approved by the commissioner and the Administrator. 

Any request for approval shall be made in writing to the 

commissioner and the Administrator and shall include a description 

of the cleaning solvent and its VOC content, an explanation of why the 

cleaning solvent is necessary, quantification of the amount of the VOC 

that will be emitted as a result of the use of the noncompliant cleaning 

solvent and the time period over which the noncompliant solvent will 

be used. 

20. Comment: The rule exempts janitorial cleaning, defined as "the cleaning of building or 

facility components including, but not limited to, floors, ceilings, walls, windows, doors, stairs, 

restrooms, furnishings and exterior surfaces of office equipment." Janitorial cleaning excludes 

the cleaning of work areas where manufacturing or repair activity is performed. A very strict 

interpretation could indicate that the regulation applies to the cleaning of work stations, even at 

otherwise exempted sites, such as those subject to the Aerospace NESHAP. 

To distinguish between and distribute separate cleaning formulations for flight critical parts and 

work stations will prove to be an onerous and impractical, if not impossible, record keeping and 

training effort . This problem could be solved by DEP categorically exempting aerospace 

manufacturing and rework sources from subsection (ii), or the language should be changed to 

exempt work station cleaning at aerospace manufacturing and rework sources if the use of 

solvents is otherwise permitted for cleaning parts. [3] 

Response: The revision recommended in the response to Comment 17 addresses the 

concern raised, as the categorical exemption of aerospace manufacturing and rework 

facilities will eliminate the need for operators of such facilities to distinguish regulated 

and non-regulated activities. 

21. Comment: Solvent cleaning is broadly defined with specific exemptions provided in 

subsection (ii)(3). Military facilities such as the Naval Submarine Base at Groton, Connecticut 

perform many functions in support of their primary mission, including maintenance of barracks, 

living spaces, equipment and vehicles ; food preparation; operation of recreational facilities such 

as a gym, swimming pool, bowling alley, golf course and movie theater; and operation of a gas 
23 

station, medical and dental center and submarine school. As general solvent cleaning is 

performed within these various functions, and many of the products used are the same products 

otherwise regulated as consumer or institutional products under RCSA section 22a-174-40, 

further clarification of subsection (ii) is necessary. DEP should make specific changes to the 

proposal to address the multiple activities of some facilities, including the following: 

" "Solvent cleaning" as defined under subsection (ii)(1)(F) should be revised to clarify 

what types of solvent cleaning operations are covered. 

" Subsection (ii)(3) should include an exemption for solvent cleaners regulated under 

RCSA section 22a-174-40 . 

" Subsection (ii)(1)(C) should specify whether "liquid" cleaning solvent includes an 

aerosol cleaning solvent of a solvent laden (pre-moistened) towelette. 

" Subsection (ii)(1)(D) should specify whether "janitorial cleaning" includes cleaning of 

furnishings and food service equipment. 

" Subsection (ii)(1)(F) should state whether cleaning of personal protective equipment, 

such as respirators, would constitute "solvent cleaning ." [5] 

Response: DEP agrees that the activities intended to be regulated under subsection (ii) 

are not clearly identified and appreciates the comments to help us so do . The CTG that 

forms the basis of subsection (ii) is focused on industrial solvent cleaning, which is not 

differentiated from other forms of solvent cleaning in subsection (ii) . Industrial solvent 

cleaning is the cleaning of parts, products or equipment incorporated into or used 

exclusively in the manufacture or construction of a finished product at a facility. The 

CTG identifies nine categories of industrial solvent cleaning, including spray gun 

cleaning (to which proposed subsection (jj) is devoted), spray booth cleaning, parts 

cleaning, manufacturing equipment cleaning, manufactured components cleaning, line 

cleaning, floor cleaning and tank cleaning. The activities that constitute industrial solvent 

cleaning do not include routine cleaning or maintenance of an establishment, activities 

which are defined as "janitorial," and the definitions in subsection (ii)(1) should be 

revised to make the distinction of the industrial and general cleaning clearer and to 

address the specific circumstances raised in the comment (i.e ., the bulleted list). The 

defined term "solvent cleaning" should be replaced with "industrial solvent cleaning," 

and the definitions should be ordered alphabetically . Subsection (ii) should be labeled 

"industrial solvent cleaning" rather than "general solvent cleaning" to distinguish the 

subsection's purpose from janitorial or general cleaning. 

As the CTG is focused on manufacturing situations, facilities such as schools, 

universities, military bases and hospitals, would typically not be subject to the subsection 

unless a portion of the facility was devoted to manufacturing. For example, a technical 

school may operate a manufacturing shop, and the shop would need to be cleaned in 

accordance with subsection (ii) absent an exemption. The rest of the school, including 

classrooms, locker rooms, offices and library, would not be subject to subsection (ii) . 

The exemptions should lead to a result that cleaning and cleaners used in an industrial 

application should only be subject to a single regulation. To a large extent, this result is 

achieved by the proposed exemptions. However, the comment identifies an important 

oversight in that no exemption is provided for cleaning with cleaners regulated by RCSA 

section 22a-174-40, and such an exemption should be added to subsection (ii)(3). In 

addition, cleaning that is subject to any other subsection of RCSA section 22a-174-20 

should also be exempt from subsection (ii) . In adding a single subclause to address 
24 

cleaning otherwise regulated in RCSA section 22a-174-20, proposed subdivisions (3)(A)(vi) and (3)(A)(vii) should be deleted and the subclauses re-numbered, as 

appropriate. 

Accordingly, the final version of subsection (ii) should be revised as indicated below. 

(ii) Gener-al Industrial solvent cleaning. 

(1) Definitions. For the purpose of this subsection : 

(A) "Air pollution control equipment efficiency" means the ratio of VOC 

emissions recovered or destroyed by the air pollution control equipment to the total VOC emissions that are introduced into the air pollution control 

equipment, expressed as a percentage; 

(B) "Capture efficiency" means the ratio of VOC emissions delivered to the 

air pollution control equipment to the total VOC emissions resulting from the industrial solvent cleaning ~~~tie , expressed as a percentage; 

(C) "Cleaning solvent" means any VOC-containing liquid, including a liquid 

impregnated wipe or towelette, used in cleaning used to per¬er~ 

(D) "Solvent- Industrial solvent cleaning" means the use of cleaning solvent 

to remove uncured adhesives, uncured inks, uncured coatings or 

contaminants such as dirt, soil an-or grease from parts, products, tools, 

machinery, equipment or work areas, where such parts, products, tools, 

machinery, equipment and work areas are incorporated into or used 

exclusively in manufacturing a product. "Industrial solvent cleaning" 

includes spray booth cleaning, cleaning of manufactured components, 

parts cleaning, cleaning of production equipment for maintenance or 

to prohibit cross-contamination, and cleaning of tanks, mixing pots, 

process vessels and lines. "Industrial solvent cleaning" does not 

include the cleaning of personal protection equipment, such as 

respirators. 

"Janitorial cleaning" means the general and maintenance cleaning of 

building or facility components including, but not limited to, floors, 

ceilings, walls, windows, doors, stairs, restrooms, furnishings, kitchens 

and exterior surfaces of office equipment. "Janitorial cleaning" includes 

graffiti removal. "Janitorial cleaning" excludes the cleaning of parts, 

products or equipment, where such parts, products or equipment are 

incorporated into or used exclusively in manufacturing a product. 

"Janitorial cleaning" excludes the cleaning of work areas, such as 

laboratory benches, where manufacturing or repair activity is performed; 

(F) "Overall control efficiency" means the product of the capture efficiency 

and the air pollution control equipment efficiency; 
25 

(3) Exemptions and exceptions . 

(A) The requirements of this subsection shall not apply to the use of 

cleaning solvent as follows: 

(i) In janitorial cleaning, 

(ii) At an aerospace manufacturing and rework operation or a 

wood furniture coating operation in accordance with an 

order or a permit issued pursuant to sections 22a-174-32(e) 

and 22a-174-20(cc) of the Regulations of Connecticut State 

Agencies, 

(iii) To perform general solvent cleaning in accordance with an 

order issued pursuant to section 22a-174-20(ee) of the 

Regulations of the Connecticut State Agencies, 

(iv) At an aerospace manufacturing and rework facility where 

cleaning solvent is used in accordance with 40 CFR 63, 

(v) As surface preparation or cleanup solvent in accordance 

with section 22a-174-44 of the Regulations of Connecticut 

State Agencies, 

(vi) Where the cleaning solvent is regulated pursuant to 

section 22a-174-40 of the Regulations of Connecticut 

State Agencies, 

(vii) To perform industrial solvent cleaning where such 

cleaning or cleaning solvent is subject to one of the 

following subsections of this section: (f) through (y), 

(ff) through (hh), or (jj), 

(xii) Associated with pharmaceutical manufacturing, and 

(xiii) That exceeds the applicable limit of subdivision (4)(A) of 

this subsection where the quantity used does not exceed 55 

gallons per any twelve-month rolling aggregate. Any 

person claiming exemption pursuant to this subparagraph 
26 

subclause shall record and maintain monthly records 

sufficient to demonstrate compliance with this exemption, 

or 

In addition, the term "solvent cleaning" as proposed in subsection (ii) shall be replaced 

with "industrial solvent cleaning" in each instance it appears. 

22. Comment: Subsection (ii)(4) should include a conversion table or formula for comparison 

of MSDS vapor pressure units and reference temperatures to the regulatory limit and a formula 

for calculating as-applied vapor pressure for solvent-water mixtures. [5] 

Response: DEP should not add a conversion table or formula as recommended in the 

comment. Information about the vapor pressure of any particular product is typically 

available in a MSDS or directly from the manufacturer. Should the units of measurement 

require conversion, there are a number of conversion tables and calculators available on 

the internet. 

23. Comment: Subsection (ii)(5)(E) requires cleaning to be conducted to "minimize associated 

VOC emissions." This mandate is ambiguous and should instead identify specific practices 

necessary to minimize emissions. [5] 

Response: The commenter is correct that subsection (ii)(5)(E) is ambiguous, and DEP 

should delete that phrase in the final version of the proposal, as follows: 

(5) Work practices . Each owner or operator shall use the following work practices : 

(A) New and used cleaning solvent, including those mixed on the premises, 

shall be stored in a nonabsorbent, non-leaking container. Such a container 

shall be kept closed at all times except when the container is being filled, 

emptied or is otherwise actively in use; 

(B) Spills and leaks of cleaning solvent shall be minimized. Any leaked or 

spilled cleaning solvent shall be absorbed and removed immediately; 

(C) Absorbent applicators, such as cloth and paper, which are moistened with 

cleaning solvent, shall be stored in a closed, nonabsorbent, non-leaking 

container for disposal or recycling; and 

) Cleaning solvent shall be conveyed from one location to another in a 

closed container or pipe. -,-7apA 

The same ambiguous phrase should also be deleted in proposed subsections (p)(6)(E), 

(q)(6)(E), (ff)(3)(E), (gg)(6)(E), (hh)(6)(E) and OJ)(5)(E)~ 
27 

24. Comment: DEP should add an exemption for digital printing operations and presses in 

subsection (ii)(3). EPA did not consider emerging industry sectors in developing the CTG. 

Indeed, EPA collected data for the CTG in 1994 and only considered nine specific industry 

sectors. An exemption would be consistent with a recent action by California's Bay Area Air 

Quality Management District, which revised the District's graphic arts rule to exempt digital 

printing operations and presses from all VOC control requirements, including those associated 

with cleaning solvents . [7, 8] 

Response: For the reasons stated in the comment, DEP should add an exemption to 

subsection (ii)(3) to exclude digital printing operations from the VOC control 

requirements of subsection (ii)(4) and the recordkeeping requirements of subsection 

(ii)(6). Owners of digital printing operations should meet the work practices of 

subsection (ii)(5) . 

The new exemption should be added as subparagraph (B) of subsection (ii)(3), as 

follows : 

(B) The requirements of subdivisions (4) and (6) of this subsection shall 

not apply to the use of cleaning solvent in a digital printing operation, 

where digital printing means a method of printing in which an 

electronic output device transfers variable data, in the form of an 

image, from a computer to a substrate. 

25. Comment: The "once in always in" language of RCSA section 22a-174-20(ii)(2)(B) does 

not encourage pollution prevention to reduce the use of VOC-containing products. There is no 

similar requirement in the CTG, and the provision should be deleted. [7] 

Response: DEP agrees that the application of a "once in, always in" policy for RACT 

sources does not encourage pollution prevention . However, EPA applies the once in, 

always in policy to RACT sources as it has historically done for major sources of air 

toxics under CAA section 112. In essence, if a source was subject to RACT because its 

potential emissions exceeded a RACT threshold, but actual emissions did not, then the 

source could by permit or other enforceable mechanism prohibit its emissions from 

exceeding the actual emissions threshold in lieu of meeting RACT. However, if the 

source's actual emissions ever exceed the RACT applicability threshold, then the source 

is permanently subject to RACT until such time as the source ceases operations covered 

by the RACT category. 

26. Comment: DEP should include all the exemptions in BAAQMD rule 8-4-116, or at least 

the following three categories: stripping of cured inks, coatings and adhesives; research and 

development laboratories ; and performance or quality testing of coatings, inks or adhesives. [7] 

Response: DEP should not add the exemptions recommended in the comment. The 

exemptions proposed in subdivisions (3)(A)(ix) and (x) already provide for a full 

exemption from subsection (ii) for industrial solvent cleaning associated with research 

and development and quality control or laboratory testing. The exemption specific to 

stripping of cured inks, coatings and adhesives does not, absent any other information, 

seem warranted given the range of exemptions included in subsection (ii)(3), including 
28 

those for printing operations otherwise regulated in RC SA section 22a-174-20 and for 

surface preparation conducted pursuant to RC SA section 22a-174-44 . 

27. Comment: The 50 gram VOC per liter limitation on solvents used for industrial cleaning 

activities should not be applied to all industrial sectors. EPA recognized that certain industries 

have unusual needs and allowed that states might tailor their rules to these specific scenarios. 

EPA also did not use accurate data in developing the CTG. Although EPA only identified 21 

facilities in Connecticut that would be subject to the CTG, there are over 230 screen printing 

facilities operating in Connecticut that will be subject to the solvent cleaning requirements. Most 

of these operations are small businesses with 15 or fewer employees. 

The screen printing industry has unique needs that are not compatible with the 50 gram VOC per 

liter limitation . The screen printing industry uses solvents for two specific cleaning activities : 

screen reclamation and on-press cleaning. Screen reclamation is the process of removing the 

stencil from the mesh so that a new stencil can be applied. Solvents used for on-press cleaning 

must be able to clean the mesh openings during a production run. The ability to quickly wipe off 

the screen during production with minimal waste is both an economic necessity as well as an 

environmental issue. Recognizing these needs, other states including Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana 

and Illinois have set out individual VOC content limits for cleaning of ink application 

equipment, rather than regulating them under general solvent cleaning requirements. [7, 8] 

A limit of 4.2 pounds of VOC per gallon should be added to the regulation for the cleaning of ink 

application equipment for screen printing operations. In addition, DEP should retain the 

alternative compliance method of using the composite vapor pressure of 25 mmHg for screen 

printing operations . [7, 8] 

Response: DEP should add a VOC content limit specific to solvent cleaning at screen 

printing operations . A number of states with similar rules regulating industrial solvent 

cleaning specify cleaning solvent standards for screen printing operations ; in all cases the 

VOC content limits are higher than the 0.42 pound of VOC per gallon (50 g/L) that 

would apply to screen printing operations under proposed subsection (ii) . 1 The final 

version of subsection (ii) should be revised by adding new subparagraph (C) to 

subdivision (3), as follows : . 

(C) The limitations of subdivision (4)(A) of this subsection shall not apply to 

cleaning solvent used to clean screen printing equipment, if the cleaning 

solvent used has an as-applied VOC content that does not exceed 500 grams 

per liter (4.2 pounds per gallon). 

DEP should also add a definition of "screen printing" to subsection (ii)(1) in the 

appropriate location alphabetically, as follows: 

"Screen printing" means a method of creating an image by pressing ink 

through a screen or fabric to which a stencil has been applied. The stencil 

openings determine the form and dimensions of the image; and 

The commenter also recommends that DEP maintain a 25 mmHg vapor pressure limit for screen printing, 

but no such vapor pressure limit is in the proposed rule . 
29 

28. Comment: The applicability of subdivision (2) should be written in terms of the actual use 

of materials or purchase of materials over a 12-month rolling average, rather than the actual daily 

emissions. Possible substitutes for the proposed applicability threshold are 3 tons of VOC per 

rolling 12-month period or 855 gallons of cleaning solvents per rolling 12-month period . [8] 

Response: DEP should revise the applicability for subsection (ii) to use a longer 

averaging period and to base the applicability on the purchase of solvent rather than 

actual emissions from industrial solvent cleaning. Both of these changes will make 

applicability determinations easier . In addition, the longer averaging period imposes the 

requirements on sources with emissions that consistently exceed a level where the cost of 

control is appropriate. See the discussion in response to Comment 13 for additional 

justification for the recommended change to the applicability. 

(2) Applicability. Except as provided in subdivision (3) of this subsection, the 

provisions of this subsection apply to an owner or operator of any premises with -aetual 

who purchases for use at the 

. . . _. r---- -- - 

premises at least 855 gallons of cleaning solvents in aggregate per rolling 12-month 

period. Any owner or operator of such a premises shall: 

(A) Comply with the requirements of this subsection no later than January 1, 

2010 or, for a source commencing operation after January 1, 2010, the 

date on which the sources commences operation; and 

(B) Remain subject to this subsection 

Rd-RA cectinn 22a-174-20 

29. Comment: DEP should include a categorical exemption for all aerospace and reworx 

facilities, regardless of size, or update RCSA section 22a-174-20(ij) to be consistent with the 

allowable gun cleaning methods in the Aerospace CTG and the Aerospace NESHAP. [2, 3, 6] 

" The Aerospace CTG and Aerospace NESHAP recognize the following gun cleaning 

methods as acceptable : 1) cleaning in an enclosed system; 2) non-atomized cleaning 

forcing solvent through the gun into a container with the atomizing cap in place but using 

no atomized air; 3) disassembled gun cleaning/soaking by hand in a container; and 4) 

atomized cleaning forcing solvent through the gun into a container fitted with a device to 

capture the emissions. [2, 3] 

" Coatings used in the aerospace industry are highly regulated by customers and are 

designed to withstand extreme conditions . Aerospace coating manufacturers often 

provide instructions on clean up of a particular coating from applicator equipment. These 

instructions typically require the applicator to be cleared with the same solvent as 

contained in the coating, in order to keep the applicator functioning properly. Solvents 

that meet the proposed VOC content limit of 0.421b/gal may not effectively clean spray 

guns used to apply aerospace coatings . [2, 3] 

" The proposed rule includes the use of an enclosed gun cleaner as an alternative to 

meeting the solvent VOC limit. Some of UTC's smaller sites use a low vapor pressure 

VOC solvent (-4 mm Hg) to clean their spray guns by disassembly and soaking in a 

container that is closed when not in use. In addition such extended soaking may be 
30 

required for some of our more viscous materials. Emissions are minimal, and this 

approach to cleaning is acceptable under the Aerospace NESHAP. [2, 3] 

Response: The exemption proposed in subsection Ejj)(3)(iii) is intended to exempt all 

aerospace manufacturing and rework facilities, whether or not the facility is subject to the 

aerospace NESHAP, from subsection (jj), if spray application equipment cleaning is 

conducted as provided in the NESHA.P and using cleaning solvents approved in the 

NESHAP (40 CFR 63 subpart GG), inclusive of the exemptions in the NESHAP. Given 

the number of comments submitted, the proposed language of subclause (iii) is not 

understood to provide this exemption and should be replaced with the following 

language: 

(iii) 

; At any aerospace manufacturing and 

rework facility, provided that cleaning solvent is used in accordance 

with the requirements of 40 CFR 63.744, inclusive of exemptions, 

In response to the comment that subsection (jj) should include the cleaning methods 

offered in the aerospace NESHAP, the hearing officer notes that the four methods 

provided in proposed subsection (jj)(4)(A) through (D) are based on the four methods 

provided in 40 CFR 63 .744(c)(1) through (4). 

30. Comment: DEP should add a new exemption to subsection (jj) to allow for the use of noncompliant solvent in amounts greater than the 55-gallon exemption. The exemption could take 

the following form: 

(A) The use of a cleaning solvent that does not comply with subdivision (4)(A) of this 

subsection may be allowed upon approval by the Commissioner. 

(B) Any request for approval under this subdivision shall be made in writing to the 

Commissioner and shall include, at a minimum, the following information: 

(i) The scope of the activity, 

(ii) An assessment of alternative materials and procedures, 

(iii) Quantification of the amount of VOC that would be emitted as a result of 

such activity, and 

(iv) The dates on which the activity will occur. [6] 

Response: DEP should expand the proposed exemptions of subsection (jj) to take into 

account those limited situations in which an owner of an activity that is not otherwise 

exempt requires the use of a non-compliant solvent and using a cleaning method other 

than an enclosed gun cleaner. Two new exemptions should be added to subsection (jj) in 

accordance with this comment. First, the commenter refers to a "55-gallon exemption," 

which was not included in the proposed exemptions in subsection (jj), but which is 

included in proposed subsection (ii) and in several similar regulations including RCSA 
31 

sections 22a-174-44 and 22a-174-20(s). Such an exemption should be added as new 

subparagraph (C) of subdivision (3), as follows: 

(C) Using cleaning solvent that exceeds the VOC content limitation of 

subparagraph (B), (C) or (D) of subdivision (4) of this subsection where the 

quantity of cleaning solvent used does not exceed 55 gallons in aggregate per 

any 12-month rolling period. Any person claiming exemption pursuant to 

this subparagraph shall record and maintain monthly records sufficient to 

demonstrate compliance with this exemption. 

In addition, as the commenter recommends, DEP should add the ability for an owner to 

apply for an exemption for situations not otherwise anticipated by the exemptions 

included in subdivision (3) by adding new subparagraph (D), as follows: 

The cleaning solvent VOC content limitations of subparagraph (B), (C) or 

(D) of subdivision (4) of this subsection shall not apply, upon request to and 

approval by the commissioner. Any request for approval shall be made in 

writing to the commissioner and shall include a description of the 

noncompliant solvent and its VOC content, an explanation of why the 

noncompliant solvent is necessary, the aggregate amount in gallons or 

pounds of noncompliant solvent use anticipated in a 12-month period and the 

frequency of use of the noncompliant solvent. 

31. Comment: "Medical device manufacturing" should be added to RCSA section 22a-174-

20(jj)(3)(A), which lists those operations and industries exempt from the requirements of 

subsection (jj) . Medical device manufacturing involves a complex manufacturing process and 

must meet stringent requirements of the U.S . Food and Drug Administration . Any change to an 

established process requires expensive and time consuming validations and/or toxicity testing, 

which would be a competitive disadvantage for Connecticut industry . [4] 

Response: For the reasons stated in the comment, DEP should add an exemption to 

subsection (jj) for medical device manufacturing. The exemption should be added as new 

subclause (vi) in subsection (jj)(3)(A), as follows: 

(vi) Associated with medical device manufacturing; and 

In addition, a definition of "medical device" should be added to subsection (jj)(1), in the 

appropriate location alphabetically, as follows: 

"Medical device" means an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, 

gadget, appliance, implant, in vitro reagent or other similar or related article, 

including any component, part or accessory, which meets one of the following 

conditions : 

(i) Recognized in the official National Formulary or the United States 

Pharmacopeia or any supplement thereto, 
32 

(ii) Intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions or in 

the cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease, in persons or 

animals, or 

(iii) Intended to affect the structure or function of the body of a person or 

animal, and which does not achieve its primary intended purposes 

through chemical action within or on such body and which is not 

dependent upon being metabolized for the achievement of its primary 

intended purposes; 

32. Comment: DEP proposes to implement several options for spray application equipment 

cleaning . Three of the five options require the use of a "cleaning solvent with an applied VOC 

content that does not exceed 50 grams per liter." In two of the options, (subdivisions (4)(B) and 

(D)), the low-VOC cleaning solvent is used in a relatively closed system to minimize emissions. 

DEP should remove the requirement to use a "cleaning solvent with an applied VOC content that 

does not exceed 50 grams per limit" from subdivisions (4)(B) and (4)(D) for the following 

reasons: 

" The reduction in emissions achieved by using a low-VOC solvent compared with any 

other solvent is minimal in a closed system. 

" A low-VOC cleaning solvent may not be able to clean the spray application equipment 

adequately in a reasonable time, adding financial burden to the regulated community. 

" If a new solvent that meets the VOC limit needs to be used during cleaning, the 

introduction of the solvent to an established, validated manufacturing process will require 

extensive quality testing, a substantial financial burden. [4] 

Response: DEP should not remove the VOC content standard from subdivision (4) as 

the lack of a standard would degrade the potential air quality benefits of the revision . 

Although the commenter describes several of the acceptable cleaning methods as 

"relatively closed," those methods are not in an enclosed gun cleaner and may, with a 

high VOC content solvent, result in significant emissions. EPA found, in developing the 

1994 Alternative Control Techniques that preceded the 2006 CTG for industrial cleaning 

solvents, that spray gun cleaning accounts for 50% of the total emissions from cleaning 

operations. While DEP is not requiring the use of enclosed gun cleaners, an enclosed gun 

cleaner is the recommended approach and may be used with solvent of any VOC content. 

DEP has not left owners and operators who require the use of a VOC content solvent to 

clean coatings or adhesives from spray guns with no recourse. An owner or operator who 

does require the use of a high VOC content cleaning solvent may do so in association 

with an enclosed gun cleaner. Furthermore, the expansion of the exemptions as discussed 

in the response to Comments 29, 30 and 31 also takes into account the needs of certain 

industries that require the use of a high VOC content solvent, either occasionally or 

routinely. 

V. Revisions Recommended by the Hearing Officer 

In addition to revisions to the proposal recommended based on the comment and response in 

Section IV of this report, the Hearing Officer recommends the following minor revisions: 
33 

(1) Throughout the proposal, DEP uses January 1, 2010 as the initial compliance date. Given 

the passage of time since the proposal was developed, DEP should replace January l, 2010 with 

January l, 2011 to allow regulated source owners additional compliance time after the proposal 

is effective and to allow DEP sufficient time for staff training and regulated community 

outreach. 

(2) In each of the revised or new subsections proposed in response to a CTG, namely 

subsections (p), (q) and (ff) through (jj), DEP proposed to use the terms "air pollution control 

equipment efficiency," "capture efficiency" and "overall control efficiency." The term "air 

pollution control equipment efficiency" and the use of the term "air pollution control equipment" 

in the definition of "capture device" make the meaning of the terms difficult to ascertain. DEP's 

intent would be better expressed by eliminating the term "air pollution control equipment 

efficiency," adding the term "control device efficiency" and revising the definitions of "capture 

efficiency" and "overall control efficiency" to eliminate the phrase "air pollution control 

equipment." This series of revisions should be made in subsections (p)(1), (q)(1), (ff)(1), 

(gg)(1), (hh)(1), (ii)(1) and (jj)(1) . Specifically, the changes to the definitions in each of the 

referenced subsections should be as follows: 2 

"Capture efficiency" means the ratio of VOC emissions delivered to the ~r~ien 

control device to the total VOC emissions resulting from [insert name 

of regulated activity] and related cleaning expressed as a percentage ; 

"Control device efficiency" means the ratio of VOC emissions recovered or 

destroyed by the control device to the total VOC emissions that are introduced into 

the device, expressed as a percentage ; 

"Overall control efficiency" means the product of the capture efficiency and the air 

control device efficiency; 

As a result of the recommended changes to the definitions, the following changes should be 

made to each of the referenced subsections, as follows : 

" Proposed subsection (p)(5)(B): 

Notwithstanding subdivisions (1)(B) (1)(C) and (2) through (6) of subsection 

(bb) of this section install operate and maintain according to the manufacturer's 

recommendations ____ 'r' system air pollution control equipment 

that reduces uncontrolled VOC emissions to the atmosphere from a coating unit 

by an overall control efficiency of at least 90%; or 

" Proposed subsection (q)(5)(B): 

Notwithstanding subdivisions (1)(B) (1)(C) and (2) through (6) of subsection 

(bb) of this section install operate and maintain according to the manufacturer's 

recommendations - 'Y ' system air pollution control equipment 

Note that the specific subparagraph designation for each of the terms is not indicated since it varies from 

subsection to subsection. 
34 

that reduces uncontrolled VOC emissions to the atmosphere from a coating line 

by an overall control efficiency of at least 90%; or 

Proposed subsection (ff)(4)(B) : 

(B) Install, operate and maintain in accordance with the manufacturer's 

recommendations, system, a capture and a 

control device , whieh m°°~° that produce the overall control efficiency identified 

in Table 20(ff)-l, according to the date of installation of the press being controlled 

and the installation date of the air pollution control deviee equipment. 

" Proposed subsection (ff)(5)(B) : 

(iv) Documentation of ai 

efficiency and capture efficiency, if applicable, and 

control device 

(v) Date and type of maintenance performed on air pollution control or- eapture 

equipment, if applicable. 

" Proposed subsection (gg)(4) : 

(4). . . . . shall operate ^ ^^atfe' a° air pollution control equipment to: 

(A) Achieve a 90% overall control efficiency if the eeiAfel device air 

pollution control equipment is installed prior to January 1, 2011 ; 

(B) Achieve a 95% overall control efficiency if the air 

pollution control equipment is installed on or after January 1, 2011 ; or 

(C) Reduce the control device outlet concentration to 20 parts per million as 

hexane on a dry basis if the inlet VOC concentration is so low that 99°40 -e r 

95-OA the overall control efficiency specified in subparagraph (A) or (B) 

of this subdivision cannot may not be achieved. 

" Proposed subsection (gg)(7)(B): 

(iv) Documentation of ui 

efficiency and capture efficiency, if applicable, and 

control device 

(v) Date and type of maintenance performed on air pollution control or- eaptwe 

. equipment, if applicable . 

" Proposed subsection (hh)(5)(B) : 

(B) Install, operate and maintain in accordance with the manufacturer's 

recommendations, system, a capture and a 

control device , whieh m°°}° that produce. . . 

" Proposed subsection (hh)(7)(B) : 

(iv) Documentation of ai 

efficiency and capture efficiency, if applicable, and 

control device 

(v) Date and type of maintenance performed on air pollution control or eaptwe 

equipment, if applicable. 
35 

" Proposed subsection (ii)(4)(B): 

(B) Install, operate and maintain in accordance with the manufacturer's 

recommendations, an emissions eei#fel sys air pollution control equipment 

that reduces uncontrolled VOC emissions to the atmosphere from any solvent 

cleaning by an overall control efficiency of at least 85%. 

" Proposed subsection (ii)(6)(B): 

(vi) Documentation of 

efficiency and capture efficiency, if applicable, and 

control device 

(vii) Date and type of maintenance performed on air pollution control ep-e~ 

equipment, if applicable. 

" Proposed subsection (jj)(4)(E) : 

(E) Installing, operating and maintaining 

control equipment that reduces . . . . 

" Proposed subsection (jj)(6)(B): 

(vii) Documentation of 

efficiency and capture efficiency, if applicable, and 

air pollution 

control device 

(viii) Date and type of maintenance performed on air pollution control ef-eapture 

equipment, if applicable. 

(3) The exemption in subsection (ii)(3)(xi) for medical device manufacturing is inaccurately 

described as "medical device operations ." The exemption should instead be stated as "medical 

device manufacturing" and a definition of "medical device" should be added to subsection 

(ii)(1). The definition should be identical to that in subsection (jj)(1) as set out in the response to 

Comment 31 . 

(4) Because the use of materials purchased offers several benefits over actual emissions as 

the mechanism for determining applicability, DEP should replace the 15 pound per day actual 

emissions threshold proposed for subsections (ff) and (hh) with 855 gallons of VOC-containing 

materials purchased in aggregate per 12-month rolling period . Although commenters only 

recommended this change for subsections (gg) and (ii), the same reasoning justifies that 

approach for subsections (ff) and (hh). 

The proposed applicability of subsection (ff) should be replaced with the following language : 

(2) Applicability. The provisions of this subsection apply to the owner or 

operator of any flexible package printing press who purchases for the printing 

operation at least 855 gallons of coatings, adhesives, cleaning solvents and solventbased inks in aggregate per any rolling 12-month period. Any owner or operator of 

a flexible package printing press shall: 

(A) Comply with the requirements of this subsection no later than 

January 1, 2011 or, for a source commencing operation after January 

1, 2011, the date on which the source commences operation; and 
36 

(B) Remain subject to this subsection. 

The proposed applicability of subsection (hh) should be replaced with the following language : 

(2) Applicability. Except as provided in subdivision (3) of this subsection, the 

provisions of this subsection apply to an owner or operator of any large appliance 

coating unit who purchases for the coating operation at least 855 gallons of coatings 

and cleaning solvents in aggregate per any rolling 12-month period. Any such 

owner or operator shall: 

(A) Comply with the requirements of this subsection no later than 

January 1, 2011 or, for a source commencing operation after January 

1, 2011, the date on which the source commences construction ; and 

) Remain subject to this subsection. 

(5) The term "non-absorbent container" should be eliminated from the defined terms in 

RCSA section 22a-174-20(q)(1) because it is assigned an ordinary meaning and, therefore, does 

not require definition . 

(6) The VOC content limit in subsection (q)(5)(A)(i) is proposed as 0.40 kilograms of VOC 

per kilogram of coating solids applied and is incorrect. The correct limit is 0.35 kilograms of 

VOC per kilogram of coating solids applied, which is the same limit proposed in subsection 

(q)(4) as a standard of general applicability. The requirements of subsection (q)(5) apply to 

larger sources and are not intended to be less protective than the requirements of subsection 

(q)(4) . Subsection (q)(5)(i) should be revised, as follows: 

For all coatings except pressure sensitive tape and label coatings, use only 

coatings that result in VOC emissions no greater than A:40 0.35 kilograms 

of VOC per kilogram of coating solids applied, 

(7) The definition of "HVLP spray" is not consistent with the part of speech or use of the 

term in subsections (p) and (hh), and so the defined term and definition should be revised as 

follows in subsections (p)(1), (p)(4), (hh)(1) and (hh)(4): 

"HVLP spray application" means to apply a coating using a high-volume low-pressure 

spra y epatifig-application system that is designed to operate at air pressures between 0.1 

and 10 pounds per sguare inch gauge measured dynamically at the center of the air cap 

and the air horns 

(8) An exception should be added to subsection (p)(3) as new subparagraph (C) to state that a 

person using air pollution control equipment to comply is not required to use one of the specified 

application techniques : 

(C) The requirements of subdivision (4) shall not apply to a person using air 

pollution control equipment to comply with subdivision (5) of this subsection. 
37 

(9) A definition of "as-applied" should be added to subsection (q)(1) since the term is used in 

the subsection . The definition should be identical to that of subsection (p)(1) . 

(10) The kilogram equivalent to 15 pounds, which is 6.8 kilograms, should be added to the 

applicability language of subsection (q)(2) . 

(11) The statement in subsection (q)(5)(A), which allows owners of paper, film and foil 

coating operations to comply by using only coatings that meet the VOC content limits or by 

using coatings that per a daily coating line average meet the VOC content limits, is not clear. 

Subsection (q)(5)(A) should be replaced, as follows : 

solids a0ph 

-

© rn VOG em e ubparagEophs (A)(!) and 

emission limiti 

Use only coatings that individually meet the applicable VOC emission limit of 

subparagraph (A)(i) or WOO of this subdivision or use only coatings so that 

the daily weighted average of the VOC content of all coatings used on a single 

coating line meets the VOC emission limit of subparagraph (A)(i) of this 

subdivision: 

01 For all coatings except pressure sensitive tape and label coatings, use 

only coatings that result in VOC emissions no greater than 0.35 

kilograms of VOC per kilogram of coating solids applied, or 

ii For pressure sensitive tape and label coatings, use only coatings that 

result in VOC emissions no greater than 0.20 kilograms of VOC per 

kilogram of coating solids applied; 

(12) Subsection (ff)(4) includes similar language to that discussed in recommendation (11) 

and should also be revised as follows: 

. . . use one of the following methods to control VOC emissions from such a press: 
38 

(A) Use only individual inks, coatings and adhesives with an as-applied VOC 

) 

content that does not exceed 0.8 kg VOC/kg of solids (0.8 lb VOC/lb of solids) or 0.16 kg VOC/kg of materials (0 .161b VOC/lb of materials) . T,_ _ t -, r 

Use only inks, coatings and adhesives so that the daily weighted 

average of the VOC content of the inks, coatings and adhesives used 

in a single printing line does not exceed 0.8 kg VOC/kg of solids (0.8 lb 

VOC/lb of solids) or 0.16 kg VOC/kg of materials (0.16 lb VOC/lb of 

materials) ; or 

(C) Install, operate and maintain in accordance with the manufacturer's 

recommendations, a capture and a control device that produce the overall 

control efficiency identified in Table 20(ff)-1, according to the date of 

installation of the press being controlled and the installation date of the air 

pollution control equipment. 

(13) The definition of "flexographic print station" in subsection (ff)(1)(E) is not accurate and should be revised, as follows: 

) "Flexographic print station" means a work station on which a flexographic 

printing operation is conducted. A flexographic print station includes a 

flexographic printing plate, whieh' and an image carrier made of rubber or 

other elastomeric material . The image to be printed is raised above the printing 

plate; 

(14) The applicability of subsection (ff) should be amended to exempt a flexible package 

printing operation subject to subsection (fl) from the obligation to comply with subsection (v), as follows: 

(2) Applicability. 

(A) The provisions of this subsection apply to the owner or operator of any 

flexible package printing press who purchases for the printing operation at 

least 855 gallons of coatings, adhesives, cleaning solvents and solventbased inks in aggregate per any rolling 12-month period . Any owner or 

operator of a flexible package printing press shall: 

(i) 

) 

Comply with the requirements of this subsection no later than 

January 1, 2011 or, for a source commencing operation after 

January 1, 2011, the date on which the source commences 

operation, and 

(ii) Remain subject to this subsection; and 

Any flexible package printing press operated pursuant to this 

subsection shall not be subject to subsection (v) of this section. 
39 

(15) Subsection (hh) should include an additional exception specifying that the owner or 

operator of a large appliance coating operation complying via add-on controls is not required to 

use the specified application methods of subdivision (4). The exception should be added to 

subdivision (3), as follows : 

(3) Exemptions and exceptions . 

(A) The requirements of subdivision (5) of this subsection shall not apply to 

the following: 

(A) (i) Stencil coating, 

(13) (ii) Safety-indicating coating, 

(G) (iii) Solid-film lubricant, 

(H) (iv) Electric-insulating and thermal-conducting coating, 

(£) (v) Touch-up and repair coating, or 

{F) (vi) Coating applied with a hand-held aerosol can. 

(B) The requirements of subdivision (4) shall not apply to a person using 

air pollution control equipment, as specified in subdivision (5)(B), to 

comply with the requirements of this subsection. 

VI. Conclusion 

Based upon the comments submitted by interested parties and addressed in this Hearing Report, I 

recommend the final proposal, included as Attachment 3 to this report, be submitted by the 

Commissioner for approval by the Attorney General and the Legislative Regulations Review 

Committee. Based upon the same considerations, I also recommend that upon promulgation 

portions of this proposal be submitted to EPA as a revision to the State Implementation Plan. 

ZZ p 

Date